I have met in long life many idiots but not one as complete as you. Do us a favour , marry your self an Arab, a man will do, and clear off you little insignificant fucking pest. You want some Miltiades treatment, I will give it to you you naïve stupid little man.

Now go and join the pervert, the two of you are a match made in heaven, What a blithering fucking idiot you are. How many times will I have to tell you, you are nothing but a piece of Ignorant LITTLE shit.

Now, I give you permission to piss on my grave you fucker, as you once boasted that you will do. Go join the pervert at your earliest and ake the fuck out of the CYPRUS forum, you fucking ...foreigner.

The guy just love making things up and on top of that adopts the Nazi Line of justifying the reasons for the Jesish extermination.

Amazing!

Now, connect the dots to Banking and Finance, his vitriol against every Western Country, Israel, NATO, EU, UK, Australia et al and his support for Pootin and Assad, and see we are dealing with a lunatic in full flight. As long as he turns on his Landing Light on finals then all is good as long as he doesn't forget to put the landing gear down!

Who is making things up ? I haven't read a post by Robin justifying the holocaust. Can you provide a link, otherwise shut it and apologize.

Talking about my own views on Syria formulated and posted here at the start of the conflict, I stand by those views ie that West should not interfere in Syria and that the west was making a grave error of judgement in supporting and arming numerous jihadist groups opposing Assad.

I have no love for Assad and neither do I have any respect for those opposing him, the devil you know is better than the one you do not. I think you also expressed similar sentiments .

Let me make it easy for you!

There is no point arguing with him as he is so absolute and a 100% know it all. I never make such claims but I have my opinions and what I consider to be well rounded and reasonable responces. I for one will not be supporting Assad under any circumstances and categorically blame him for the bloodshed in Syria far more than I can ever blame DAESH which are an insignifant terrorist group which will be defeated in due course. Assad however, is far more dangerous, has battered and repressed his own people resulting in the opposition against him whether that be moderate forces or DAESH itself. There will be no peace with Assad, nor any justice. This is my reasoning and my opinion which I am entitled to, and they are opinions which are commonly held in the West. You, do not hold these commonly held views so stop pretending you do all because you got a few votes on a Cypriot forum.

Let's be very clear about Robin Hood. If Turkey and the USA went to war tomorrow, Robin Hood would support Turkey. If Saudi Arabia went to war with the USA tomorrow, he would support Saidi Arabia.

Since Assad and Russia have teamed up, and against America and the coalition practically, he supports Assad.

If Turkey went to war with the USA tomorrow, he would support Turkey. Just because he lives in Cyprus means nothing. Everything is about an agenda which can't be taken seriously. Not only would be support Turkey, but he would support Turkey taking over the entire island. Cyprus is an EU country, hence it is on the wrong side. Cyprus is by default on America's side and a Coalition ally. Hence they officially support transition in Syria.

It's all a means to an end. There is no logic, nor any reason! Just anti west, EU, NATO, UK, Cyprus, Greece, America and every single ally including Brazil.

You think I am exaggerating? Well no I am not. He will try and convince you of anything including outlandish conspiracies such as the MH304 being an American plot, the Americans spraying billions of people with chemicals, Americans bombing themselves on Sept11, Americans and Israel this and that. And on top of that he will provide sources from Academics, engineers and other so called "experts" which are not taken seriously but which he says are learned whilst any other source which is contradictory is from the corrupted Western MSM, and Murdoch Media. Then he will turn on you if you do not agree with him 100%.

I have virtually not agreed with him on anything.

And my my have you changed. Garavnoss is 100% correct. I have no issues with him not agreeing with my views, but I will not accept his personal vitriol or utter stupidity which you have taken hook line and sinker.

Read the posts about his justifications for the holocaust! Don't tell me he never said it. Why would you adopt the NAZI thesis if you do not support the extermination of Jews? It runs much deeper than that of course. Another reason why he supports Assad is because Assad and Israel are enemies. And he wants both Israel and America on their knees before Assad and before Russia. But it doesn't end there. He wants America's allies on its knees including Australia. Not only this, but he is a British Citizen and a beneficiary of the UK's generous NHS. Yet I have not heard him ever say a single positive thing about the UK. Just a few days ago, he was agreeing that the UK is the most corrupt country in the world. Sorry, but that is just not realistic. But then he supports Pootin who is in fact without a doubt very corrupt and bordering criminality at the best of times. Just look at how many Russian journalists are in jail for writing the wrong articles or saying the wrong things. A record which is simply a lot more severe than Turkey. Do you deny this? The facts are the facts. Turkey is also bad.

But it isn't about who is bad or who is right. It's about the agenda.

Paphitis, I realise you are not quite on the same planet as the rest of us but this is simple delusion from a seriously tormented mind. Not a word of it is real ..... it is ALL in your imagination ..... you must have an massive inferiority complex?

But even taking that into account ...... a road-kill Wombat has a higher IQ than you and to refer to you as Koala is most unfair to ..... Koala's !

I have met in long life many idiots but not one as complete as you. Do us a favour , marry your self an Arab, a man will do, and clear off you little insignificant fucking pest. You want some Miltiades treatment, I will give it to you you naïve stupid little man.

Now go and join the pervert, the two of you are a match made in heaven, What a blithering fucking idiot you are. How many times will I have to tell you, you are nothing but a piece of Ignorant LITTLE shit.

Now, I give you permission to piss on my grave you fucker, as you once boasted that you will do. Go join the pervert at your earliest and ake the fuck out of the CYPRUS forum, you fucking ...foreigner.

You want fight boy, Ill fucking give you one you kangaroo moron.

I agree with the substance of your views, although your presentation is not exactly PC is it?All that happens with this dork is, if you challenge him and refute his imbecilic claims, he makes up more extreme claims based on his own previous extreme views. He spews out hate in every post so his ramblings are just that and have no validity on the forum. I don't think we need a poll to prove that ..... just common sense.

He is also feeding us a load of cobblers on his 'investments'! He says the banks love him so much that he gets an interest rate that is not available to others? Then he admits he does not have any accounts with a €100k in them?'

That means for a start he doesn't trust these banks so relies on the 'Insurance' if they happen to fail, or he does not have the sort of finances he boasts about. So he is lying about the 'special' interest rate the bank gives him, he would need to deposit a large 6-7 figure amount in an account to get any special deal. So it's all rubbish he spouts.

When I related his ramblings to a real businessman friend, who does invest in Millions his reply was ....."Oh ..... really??" he raised eyebrows and smiled. He then asked what Planet he lived on ...... and I said I couldn't in all honesty answer that question.

RHMy language is rather colourful when dealing with anybody who insults my wife, states that he wants to piss on my grave as well as throwing a plethora of insults. Frankly I do not flinch from reverting to colourful STREET language with any such individual.

I don't subscribe to the notion that one has to be always polite and turn the other cheek, this has been my lifetimes norm.

He is so full of shit and he has to understand that as far as I'm concerned I don't take his crap.

I will however, kindly ask him if he can spare a few quid for a struggling businessman

the solution to many problemsWhen it comes to tax reform, the Income Tax has to be at the top of the list, anywhere, around the world.When we describe ourselves as a consumer society, we make two assumptions:you get what you pay for, and that people will choose what is best for themselves.One man one vote seems self evident yet nowhere in the tax code is this premise used, combined with the two preceding assumptions, to define for the taxpayer a reason for the tax's collection. Income Tax, as well as the GST are the means, primarily from which the government intends to gain its revenue toward expenses. What are they defining? Very little, frankly. Furthermore, the Income Tax is regressive as it is complex, subject to much avoidance, with its evasion a subject of much concern for the revenue authorities.A fixed term of taxation on Income, that is relatively low, and difficult to change, certainly will give the taxpayer a clear representation of the cost of Good Governance in its strictest definition. In such a circumstance, the cost of the legislature, judiciary, executive and its bureaucracy can be defined as a percentage of Income collected as an Income Tax, with very few deductions having a flat rate... perhaps as a means to encourage saving, or for greater social security, premiums can be paid, more can be collected, where, avoidance, and evasion can be viewed as undemocratic, in that every citizens pays an equal share, and in paying more, gaining a further benefit.It is the GST which Canadians can use to determine the value of the Goods and Services they consume, as they reflect on Social Programs, such as the Environment (our natural wealth), Health/ Safety, and our cultural heritage ( Education and Welfare). Using the General System Theory, we have the means to make this tax (the GST) variable, applied at all levels of production, so that the products, their externalities, are identifiable. Using such sophisticated mathematical models to actualise, and to factor these costs, will when described as a sum to the final consumer is a form of indirect taxation which is not onerous. It will allow, in their choice as consumers, acts which may have the same cost to them, when comparing products, choosing a content of technology which is more, but having a lower amount of tax inherent in the total cost,Consider two examples:1. The refrigerator manufacturer will sum up the list of parts that goes into their product to determine its cost, using two columns; one is the total cost of each item paid, and one is the tax inherent in each item's cost. On the total, a profit is included, and on that, the tax an additional sum is added. Imported products that are in competition will be expected to pay the same amount of tax, if their product uses a similar technology. Most likely, the content of tax would be high in a present day refrigerator, because it is not environmentally friendly(hazordous chemicals and many components without a recyclable value).The Canadian manufacturer (and the competitors) however, now have new variables, in their accounting process, the second column, to evaluate costs. It will be natural for new technology to be developed, which may have an equal total cost, but having a significantly lower tax content, because the machine is more efficient, and self sustaining; all its parts recyclable, without toxic waste.2. A man walks into a Grocery store to buy a quart of milk, he is likely to pay a modest sum of tax on it. The same man walks into a Restaurant, and orders a glass of milk, he will likely pay something higher. And if he was to order his milk in a Bar it would be significantly higher, especially if it was licensed to allow smoking as well.This manner of accounting for externalities is possible, ironically (on many levels) because of the GST (General System Theory), and how it has changed the lives of all Mankind, with the Advent of the Information Age. In Canada, it is possible because of the refined nature of our financial acumen in Government, in business, and in our daily lives; as well, because of our strong desire to represent the best of Humanity, what we have ignored through denial can be defined.In China, as it is in Cuba these reforms, because they are Socialistic, are easy to embrace, they have Communist governments, in which, we may be of help to them, because they have a strong desire to reform their societies to include Taxes on Income, and Consumption। For the EU, this tax system is vital as well. Most importantly, it is possible to put a cost to the policies of the Nation, toward the betterment of our condition, and in a manner where the individual can commit to acts that lower these costs, by paying less tax.

There are two things, as a consumer (and as a student), I have learned: you get what you pay for, taxes come with this exchange (you get nothing, for free). I ask, aside from what it buys, this tax collection, how useful is this act in defining a cost directly associated with the/an act of buying. Is this possible? indeed, ironically the solution is found in the GST, General System Theory, and the GST (preeminent among Tax Regimes); these provide Canadians the choice to reform the meanings and values of their tax system.

imagine, walking into the household appliance store, at the cash register a tax rate is posted, 4%, and you go in to compare refrigerators, two you like stand side by side, there you look at the sticker price where you see one with a tax of $125 and the other has a tax of $600 while both sell for the same total price. in Canada, (this could be possible,)it would mean that the one with the low tax is probably Canadian designed, most certainly free of the externalities that the present day refrigerator costs Society. You choose the one you want, your purchase adds another 4% to the tax collected total.

imagine, you can walk into a bar, the tax rate at the till is 39%, you will buy your licensed goods, like the refrigerators, each has a tax rate which is defined within a total cost at purchase: cigarettes (or a packet) at least 200%, alcohol as well will have a distinct tax rate which reflects its consumption and its cost to Society, (in the future some cigarettes will be edible, they won't start fires and kill people in other ways; that cigarette will have a Tax too, (a summation from the total costs and tax inherant of the goods which made that cigarette,) and as a luxury good, id`guess around 39%; and (lol) you will be smoking, in that bar, what licensed goods it is permitted to sell.

one other thing i have learned in my life, and that is the Principal of One Man One Vote. only one Tax, it seems to me, can define this nature: it is the Income Tax. nothing seems less fair than the complex of laws we plod to every year, credits and deductions where it seems there is no way of knowing you made the best avoidance choices toward your payment. no deductions, few if any features other than a Flat Tax, or something close to it, no higher than 14% serves the need for Good Government. At the time of voting, each citizen is as a taxpayer equal.

...as taxpayers and consumers they are equals in choosing.

Externalities are now measurable, and they can be quantified, based on the principals: user pays, and, you get what you pay for, it is reasonable to expect that a product's 'social cost' would be included in its sale price. and if every good and service was identified by the externalities that are included in their realisation, a Government could finance the work of mitigating these costs. one hopes that the Income Tax in any one of these regimes can be made more easy to understand, a flat rate, based on the Principal of, one man one vote, a measure of the actual cost of Good Government, and not the policies in which these governments are involved; something like a Goods and Services Tax which is infinitely variable serves this purpose better.

RW – Thank you for posting that it makes interesting reading .... well at least for me! What was the source? I would like to read more?

I have no argument with the content but like many ‘solutions’ they fail to recognise the basic problem! They also seem to wander from income tax to consumer taxes and blur the line of difference between them. In principal it seems to be a bit like variable purchase tax on goods and services, as it was in the UK before they introduced VAT.

But the basic problem always comes down to the source of the raw material ....... CURRENCY! Do we continue to let banks create it, or do we let the Central Bank create it?

What is the purpose of income tax? Income tax is one means the government uses to repay part of the loans and interest owed to the Private banks.

If you understand the monetary system, you will be aware that banks buy government bonds (debt) with money the banks create ...... ‘out of nothing’ ..... it is simply a ledger entry and nothing more, that is a known and provable fact. When the tax payer’s money is re-paid to the bank it reduces the government debt and destroys that amount of bond debt. The taxes do not go back into circulation.... they are written off the banks ledger debt! That money can only reappear again if the government sells the banks more bonds.

It is a never ending cycle of debt ...... debt to private banks. Income tax has one basic problem that is rarely mentioned, it never enters the economy as it is deducted before it can be spent! In effect, it is borrowed by government and the income tax portion of their expenditure goes straight back to the lending bank.

Without government debt being created by the banks (Private/commercial banks) instead of being created by The Central Bank, there would be no debt to repay. As I tried to explain previously if the private commercial banks ‘supplier’ were changed from the current self created currency to the same currency, produced in exactly the same way as the banks create it now, through the Central Bank ... it would be debt free and interest free. The direct tax on income would become unnecessary as all the money spent within the state would be recovered by indirect taxation on goods and services and would return to the Treasury to be re-spent into the economy.

On page one of this thread I made this comment to Paphitis: (It fell on deaf ears )

“Read what I explained to you and you will see that just the single act of taking away the privilege of money creation from the banks and giving it BACK to the State, has a lot going for it. What I wrote barely scratches the surface. If you want to question anything (politely!)I am happy to try and explain, but only on what I know ..... and in spite of what you think, that is NOT banking, it is more allied to economics.”

...an Income Tax can be a measure of the cost of Good Government. The principal of one man one vote can be directly related to it, if it, as a Tax, expresses what it costs to keep, a Foreign Office, an Army, a Judiciary, the cost of Elections, a Legislature, an Executive, and the Treasury; Income Tax, a Flat Rate: Good Government, its cost.

Programs, all the efforts the Government makes, so that we as a Government better our lives, is best derived from our consumption; you get what you pay, the Principal which a Tax can quantify.

Thus, if there was a Tax on Guns (in America), like any other good, that identified the Good's or Service's externalities and their costs, this Tax separately identified for the Consumer to see clearly at time of purchase, inherent in the Total Cost the Gun is sold for, would rise, after an incident like Orlando.

...money is a medium of exchange, i agree, it itself should have no value, since it does, a great deal of effort is put into "getting" more of it; bit coin comes to mind, the miners, and the block chains, a frontier approach to getting "more" of some thing which is a measure, or should be. "Money", having externalities, and consumptively, a Good or Service, in my world would be Taxed, accordingly.

...and accordingly, Taxpayers, having choices, by their own behaviour, when as Individuals, they collectively act in a more responsible manner, they can lower the Tax on products they use.

...manufacturers as i have demonstrated will act competitively, with product designs having a lower "Tax" content. While sold for the same price perhaps, more value as a good, by content.

RW: I have absolutely no problem with any of your post, it makes sense. I can see the logic behind it and the benefits of the fairness it can bring. However, I come back, once again to the basic principal of the creation of the basic resource ....... ‘money’. It is how this is created as debt that creates the need for not only tax on income but also austerity, to repay the loan to a private commercial bank with interest. If there was no loan, there would be no repayment required and no interest to pay. All the money would go directly or indirectly into the economy.

Contrary to certain views on here, I recognise the need for banks , the benefits of the capitalist system and also the need for a social system which has to be funded by taxation. If the money the State borrows is used to repay a debt before it is spent into the economy, then it provides no benefits to the taxpayer, the country or society. The only beneficiaries are the banking and financial systems which create the basic resource as numbers. Very little of their commercial effort goes into providing real wealth in the form of jobs and growing businesses, it goes into expanding the asset markets. The banks and financial institutions increase their account numbers without creating tangible wealth.

Positive Money, whilst I don’t agree with all their theories, is trying to change the system at the bottom end, the entry point to the whole system, by having the creation of this basic resource returned to the sole authority of the State as is the case with note and coin and not commercial banks.

I don’t know much about BitCoin, Blockchain and see them as being a level above creation and are more about the transfer of wealth rather than its creation. I don’t really have enough knowledge to offer an informed opinion.

I see the source of the resource as the fundamental problem with the system. Once created, it is needed for all the reasons you have pointed out but currently it is all achieved at the cost of creating an exponentially expanding State debt. If you can create the resource without incurring debt it has to be better for every one ......... except those doing the lending, of course.

How would we react to having our salary or pension paid to us as a loan, that we then had to repay with interest, having had say 20% deducted and repaid to the lender before we could even spend it. In effect the 20% went into your left-hand trouser pocket , crossed to the right-hand pocket in which the borrower had his hand. You have a debt that has been created and repaid without having been of any benefit to anyone!

But even then, at the private loan level it really makes very little difference to either lender or borrower. All that has changed is that the lender (the banks) now has a liability to repay their loan to their lender ..... The State via its Central Bank. The method of creation has not changed only the source (supplier). By changing the source at the Government (Treasury) level, you have eliminated the necessity for debt and thus having to repay a loan to a commercial company with interest.

The State does not need to show a profit as it creates the profit. It cannot have losses as it creates what is lost, from nothing, in the first place. I can honestly see only benefits to individuals, society , businesses and industry of a revision to the creation of the basic resource ..... ‘money’.

I watched a video some time ago (I cant find it now)where a journalist simply asked two questions of ordinary people in the street, people of all ages and backgrounds from professional types to housewives :

• Do you know where money comes from?

• Would you rather it was created only by a private commercial company?

No one knew the answer to the first question, many made wild guesses from The Government (the favourite) to gold miners! But ..... ALL were vehemently opposed to the idea of a private commercial company having the sole right to create money.

Just shows that there is a long way to go before the populace gain any concept of the system that rules every second of their lives.

Robin Hood wrote:Paphitis: This post just demonstrates how very little you know about the system! So I will dissect it .... I don’t have any high powered meeting with bankers and millionaires today ..... that was yesterday .... so I have time to answer your post.

The process of creating money is transparent and very accountable. the Banks are accountable to the market.

As I have asked you to do before ..... if it is so transparent then explain to all of us that obviously are nowhere near as clever as you are ....... exactly how the process of money creation works. Surely for someone as intelligent and well informed as you it cannot be that difficult? I have asked you several times to do this ..... but so far you seem to be reluctant to give some sort of explanation, with some credible links, of course.

But not only this, imagine if Banks couldn't create money.

OK, you asked, so let’s look at that single point. I realise you are somewhat intellectually challenged on this subject so I will try and keep it as simple as I can.

If the Government created the electronic money, the same way they have exclusively created paper money for over a 150 years, let’s just look at what changes for the private borrowers; the individual, the small business, the importer, the exporter, research and development etc. and even the big businesses? In terms you should be able to understand .......... on the face of it NOTHING!

The only thing that changes and then only behind the scenes, is the source of the ‘money’ (it is like changing suppliers) and the fact that the banks now have a liability to repay the supplier (The independent Central Bank), every time they create debt (i.e. make a loan). You would still apply for your loan with the same requirements of the bank and you would make payments to the bank, just as you do now. NO DIFFERENCE' !

I am sure that as an astute business man you do understand the process of changing suppliers?

So there are no disadvantages except that the bank now has to service their debts, just like the rest of us do. They can no longer lend without liability, the same as you or I cannot borrow without liability!

Governments do not need to make a profit themselves and any profit others make from the system .... their Central Bank creates in the first place. This is a big advantage for the borrower because the interest rate for any loan can be increased or decreased without affecting the banks profit levels. Now I suspect this is difficult for you to understand? So let me give you an example.

If a loan of €100k is granted by a bank and their mark up is say 5%, the CB now has an option to adjust the rate to suit the type of loan. Assume it is a housing loan for a first time buyer, the bank could give it to them (by government directive) at zero interest but the bank would still be allowed to make 5% on the deal. How, very simple when you know HOW!

The CB transfers €100k to the lending bank and that is represented as the debt in the borrowers loan account ..... he has to pay that back to the bank BUT ..... the bank only has to pay the Central Bank 95% of it. Does the CB lose anything ..... of course not, they created the numbers used in the transaction out of thin air In the first place, like they have with notes for 150 years. So they lose nothing ...... the borrower only pays back the capital to the bank ..... and the bank still makes a profit. It is called a subsidised loan. Nothing could be simpler!

So all your scare stories are based on a lack of knowledge and are unfounded .... just like the IN/OUT Brexit campaign ...... they work on peoples ignorance through mouthpieces who just parrot what they have been led to believe, because they are also just as ignorant as their audience.

Well folks, that would just be the shittiest thing for the hard working poor and middle class, because now, they are denied their aspiration by borrowing money and you deny them opportunity.

You are wrong .... I just showed you why! Those that want to borrow can do so and depending what it is you want the money for, the rate of interest can be anything from 0% - (i.e. a subsidy) say for first time buyers .... to 150%+ for those fabulously rich people like you who want to buy another luxury Yacht, a new private jet or invest in a new Marina in Nicosia. You want it .... but you pay for it! As you say “......if you want the best of everything, you need to pay .....”!

Another example. Every western country wants the best Health Care System, the Best Education and University System, the best transport infrastructure and services. yet most people don't want to pay too much tax.

Once again ... you are confused!

The explanation above concerns private and corporate loans provided by banks. You have now switched lanes and are talking Government debt, two completely different things. 1) the banks need to make a profit on every transaction and 2) the government doesn’t! The ball game changes.

So let's have a go at explaining how this works with Government funding:

In the above explanation, the Central Bank Created the money from nothing, (electronically), loans it to the banks, they loan it to their customers, who repay the bank, the bank deducts its cut and gives the rest back to the Central bank.

For Government debt .... you have the same starting point ..... the Central Bank creates the money out of thin airand transfers it to the treasury, the treasury pays the wages, telephone bills, contractors, doctors, nurses, policemen, soldiers etc and builds new ports, factories, railways, roads, airports, ships, helicopters, aeroplanes, MRI machines, hospitals and schools......... all within certain constraints .... like ‘easy-easy’. The big difference now ..... the money is not a loan, so there is no need for the Government to repay the money or the interest to its own Bank.

When this money is spent into the economy, everything spent is subject to added taxes. These taxes are collected and instead of being used to repay debt to the banks, it is paid to the treasury to be re-spent into the economy. It is known as perpetual money ..... once in the system it stays in the system ..... it is not paid back to private commercial banks for them to destroy as they do now and then re-create it as more government debt.

Well, if you want the best of everything, you need to pay 50% of your hard earned in tax. The rich will set up Trust Funds, electronically transfer money and will always pay less. So again, the working class and the middle class carry the can.

I don't agree with your sentiment but, your (our) “......hard earned taxes’ will now go back into the economy, because there is no debt or interest to repay ...... the money the government is now spending is debt free and interest free. As your taxes are no longer funding the life style of the rich bankers and plunging economies such as that of Greece into bankruptcy and poverty, much more of it, in fact all of it, goes back for the government to spend on projects such as “.......the Best Education and University System, the best transport infrastructure and services” and super hospitals, good pensions and healthcare. The rich can do what they like with their money ..... providing they pay the taxes due on their expenditure.....but tax evasion and avoidance could be stamped out overnight.

Now if you're not prepared to pay 50% in tax, and only prepared to pay 30% or less, then you can't have the best of everything. A compromise is necessary. So you will end up with an ok Health System and Education System as well as ok transport system and services. Can't have it both ways.

But that is just not true at all. That is the way YOU see it because your concept of the system is very limited..... i.e.’ what’s mine, I will keep and share it with nobody’ mentality.

But what you can’t see is that if this money that the CB creates is used only internally to pay for all the goods and services ...... there is no need for people to pay any income tax. You only need income tax if you need to repay debts to the banks ...... no government debt ..... no income tax. You then make the rich pay taxes when they convert to a reserve currency, when they take it out to stash it into their off shore Tax havens and trust funds. They can bring it back anytime and convert it back to the national currency for free, but it costs them to convert it back, every time they take it out.

So, yes you can have it both ways!

And if the poor and middle class only pay 30% and less, they have a better chance of having a go. They can go to the Bank and borrow and not be denied a reasonable standard of living or retirement. They can set up a small business, and perhaps employ someone too. Small business is actually the Biggest Employer sector in the Western World not the big corporations.

The poor, the middle classes, the rich need not pay income tax ..... the only reason they pay it now is to repay the Bankers for lending them money the banks never had in the first place ..... and at interest. Surely .... as a super rich, wheeling, dealing ,astute business man, acting at the hub of the capitalist system and hob-knobbing with the Elite and not so elite (Arabs) ..........you can see the benefits of loans at selective interests rates for individuals and businesses, no income taxes to pay and a society that provides the best for all the people and leaves the supper rich like you to spend your money any way you want to.

The system is the best we got.

Well as a bit of a Neanderthal when it comes to the monetary system ......you would think that any way!

That is what the Neanderthal grunted as his world started to crumble around him..... whilst the smart ‘early left wing, socialist, conspiracy theorist’ started farming, building houses, making flint tools and eventually forging metal and printing books ...... and they even invented banks. Now tell me who was the smartest and most successful? The Neanderthal with a small brain, big mouth and no imagination ...... or the smart guy who used his imagination, acquired knowledge and applied skills to create the World we have today.

I expect your usual offensive reply as I think most of this will go in one ear and out of the other. I think it is way above your pay grade any way but try working it out for yourself and you will soon see (depending on how good you are) that it does actually work.

Please before you start ranting that I am an idiot, dork, fantasist, or conspiracy theorists etc. ...... try forming your insults into a coherent question/query instead.

Think about it. The money created by the Central Bank has exactly the same source as the currency created by the commercial banks now, thin air and it ends up the same way as currency does when it is repaid to the commercial bank to pay off a loan .......it is written off the books, it is destroyed.

There is no more inflation than now! What causes inflation is not the loan because, what is created by the loan is destroyed when it is repaid. What causes inflation is those loan’s that default and the money created remains in circulation with no way of recovery. The banks may well sell off the collateral and recover their interest, costs, fees etc. and maybe some of the capital, but what they cannot recover remains in circulation. They then write this down on the books. It is their unrecovered loan/debt created currency that increases the money supply. That’s inflation .... not the loan itself or the interest!

There is no difference between the bank created fiat currency and Central Bank created fiat currency......... all you have done is jacked the creation process up a notch so that banks now have a liability to repay a lender (Central Bank), it is the CB that now destroys the currency when debt is repaid, instead of the private banks. On private loans with the bank acting as agent the borrower would only see a variable interest rate set according to certain parameters, you could even give negative loans to SME’s according to the amount of wealth (production of goods) or the number of jobs the loans use could generate.

It will be the State that can adjust the interest to suit the situation .......... just like commercial banks do now. For instance, a first time buyer could get a zero interest rate but that could be limited as a one off loan, according to income, by time or if the buyer sells. At the same time the banks still get their cut whether it is a subsidised or loaded loan .... their mark up would be the same.

With currency created by the Central Bank there is no loan to repay and no interest to pay to the banks. Just as the banks have no liability to repay now. You will see from the BoE bulletin, that there is no corresponding liability to balance their assets. Their assets (loans/debt) are an immaculate creation ........... it needs nothing more than a quill pen or a computer to create it!

If you think like a banking accountant then this concept will horrify you.

All the commercial high street banks now become is an intermediary between the CB and the public. They no longer have what I would call false assets, i.e. debt! THESE assets would now equal liabilities and client deposits become their new assets ..... but these new assets are again balanced against their liability to repay the depositors on demand. We would in turn pay the banks for their services ..... no more free banking! We would work on the capitalist principal of putting our money in the bank for safety but with the bank that can give you the best deal.

The same situation with Government loans has an even greater advantage for the economy, jobs, infrastructure, R&D, services, education, healthcare etc.etc. Because, instead of an ever increasing percentage of taxes going to repay loans plus interest to the private banks, the taxes are re-spent through the treasury either directly or indirectly into the economy.

The Central Bank has the power to increase or decrease the money supply (control) ........ they create but they can also destroy!